PALACE ADMINISTRATION BOARD Vs. RAMA VARMA BHARATHAN THAMPURAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HORACE wrote "But if Homer, who is good, nods for a moment, I think it a shame". We, in the Supreme Court, do 'nod' despite great care to be correct, and once a clear error in our judgment is revealed, no sense of shame or infallibility complex obsesses us or dissuades this court from the anxiety to be ultimately right, not consistently wrong. The present petition for review is one such and we have listened, at unusual length, to counsel's oral submissions having felt that an error in the judgment under review, likely to injure and unsettle, needed to be mended.

(2.) WE may narrate, very briefly, the necessary facts and catena of statutes so that the flaw may be identified and rectified. The subject-matter is the partition of the assets of the erstwhile royal family of the Maharajah of cochin, if we may avoid the jaw-breaking description used in one of the relevant legislations viz. The Valiamma Thampuran Kovilakam Estate and Palace Fund belonging to the family of the Maharajah of Cochin. A capsulated survey of the landmark legislations will help locate the controversy and liquidate the error, if any. This family, to begin with, was impartible and its administration was statutorised by a Royal Proclamation of 1124 (hereinafter called the Proclamation) which constituted a Board in this behalf consisting of five trustees to be nominated by the Maharaja with an equitable eye on representation for each branch (tavashi) of the family. Section 2 (a) read with Section 4 of the Proclamation defines the Board's composition which shows a slight overshight on our part in the earlier order. And thereafter, came the Great Divide in the story of the royal family and began its slow integration into the commonalty retaining, in some measure, its peculiar individuality. By Act 16 of 1961 (The Valiamma Thampuran Kovilakam Fstate and Palace Fund (Partition) Act 1961) (for short the 1961 Act) impartibility was abolished conditionally as it were, Section 3 therein laid down:

(3.) SECTION 7 of this Act repeals certain enactments mentioned in the schedule thereto; but what is of significance in that schedule is that the Proclamation of 1124 and Act 16 of 1961 (which are measures specially devoted to Cochin Royal Family) are not repealed. What the impact of this omission is, is a subject of debate between the parties and we will come presently to it. We then move on to Ordinance I of 1978 promulgated on 6-1-1978 which was replaced duly by Act 15 of 1978, published in the Gazette on 19-3-78. This Act (The Valiamma Thampuran Kovilkam Estate and the Palace Fund (Partition) and the Kerala Joint Family System (Abolition) Amendment Act. 1978), is an arendatory adventure affecting vitally the partitioning of the Cochin Royal family. The implication of the provisions of this legislation constitute the subject-matter of the reviewpetition on which the parties bitterly join issue.